alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,675
<SECURITIES>                                    21,776
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,881
<ALLOWANCES>                                       581
<INVENTORY>                                        296
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,506
<PP&E>                                          13,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,961)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          (8,491)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         (169)
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,565)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (54,514)
<SALES>                                        (8,636)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (10,623)
<CGS>                                              901
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,246)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,347
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,899)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIAM ST. CLAIRE, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-5194

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed October 3, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier 

County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge.

Philip L. Reizenstein of Woodward and 

Reizenstein, PA, Miami, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Laurie Marie BenoitKnox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa; 

and Peter Koclanes, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of 

record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant

                     TB Wood's Corporation and Subsidiaries

                                 January 2, 1998


Registrant:  TB Wood's Corporation, Delaware

 Subsidiary:  TB Wood's Incorporated, Pennsylvania

   Subsidiaries: Plant Engineering Consultants, Incorporated, Tennessee
                 TB Wood's North Carolina, North Carolina
                 TB Wood's Canada, LTD., Ontario, Canada
                 TB Wood's Mexico, S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, Mexico
                 TB Wood's Foreign Sales Corporation, Delaware
                 TB Wood's Foreign Investment Company, Delaware

                 Subsidiaries:    Berges electronics, GmbH, Marienheide, Germany
                                  Berges electronics, S.R.L., Naturns, Italy
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-11011 Conference Calendar

__________________ ALCARIO VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; MIKE WARREN; G. ANDERSON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:95-CV-20-C

- - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This is an appeal from the dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of a state prisoner's civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellant contends that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and the district court's order of dismissal, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 59 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 59

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
August 2, 2012, through Tuesday, August 7, 2012, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, 
September 10, 2012, or such other time on that day as may be specified 
by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or 
adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 
House adjourns on any legislative day through Thursday, August 2, 2012, 
through Tuesday August 7, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, September 10, 2012, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate August 2, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 59

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2270

MURAT OZCAN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-155-968)

Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 25, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Murat Ozcan, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette Francis Sarko,

Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Murat Ozcan, a native and citizen of Turkey, seeks review

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming

without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of his third motion

to reopen. We have reviewed the administrative record and find

that the denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of

discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (4)(ii) (2005); Matter

of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). 

We accordingly deny the petition for review. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    AIP
                        Home
                                    About
                                    Publications
                                    Software
                                    People
                                    Collaborations
                                    Careers
                                    Centennial
                                    Contact
                                    Dairy industry links
                    DirectionsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

AIPheadline bar About
               AIP Collaborations
               AIP Home
               Dairy industry links
               Publications
               Software


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### STOKES, Respondent, v. STAPLES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, hirst Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Emma M. Stokes against Hartwell Staples. O. L. Hoffman, for appellant. F. D. Dowley, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Periodic Report**     Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officerof Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned’sknowledge: (1) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2005 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated:November 8, 2005    /s/ Mary T. Minch     Name: Mary T. Minch
# C_2019399EN.01010402.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/104 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/104

---

Order of the General Court of 17 September 2019 — Fastweb v Commission

(Case T-19/19) (1)

(2019/C 399/125)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---
# C_2019255EN.01005601.xml

| 29.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/56

---

Action brought on 13 June 2019 — CE v Committee of the Regions

(Case T-355/19)

(2019/C 255/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CE (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the present application admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the present application admissible and well founded;

| — | annul the decision of 16 April 2019 and, in the alternative, annul the decision of 16 May 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 16 April 2019 and, in the alternative, annul the decision of 16 May 2019;

| — | order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm incurred, amounting to the sum of EUR 19 200 non-inclusive of VAT, and compensation in respect of the non-material harm incurred, estimated to amount to the sum of EUR 83 208,24; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm incurred, amounting to the sum of EUR 19 200 non-inclusive of VAT, and compensation in respect of the non-material harm incurred, estimated to amount to the sum of EUR 83 208,24;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an abuse of process and infringement of Articles 47 and 49 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and of Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an abuse of process and infringement of Articles 47 and 49 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and of Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to fair and just working conditions, of the principle of sound administration and of the prohibition on any form of psychological harassment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to fair and just working conditions, of the principle of sound administration and of the prohibition on any form of psychological harassment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging material inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging material inaccuracy and a manifest error of assessment.

---
WILLIAM HENRY BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-2744

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 12, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Steven B. Whittington, Judge.

William Henry Brown, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2019357EN.01000301.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/3

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2019 by Iceland Foods Ltd against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2018 in Case T-267/18: Iceland Foods v EUIPO - Íslandsstofa (INSPIRED BY ICELAND)

(Case C-162/19 P)

(2019/C 357/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Iceland Foods Ltd (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, J. Hertzog, C. Hill and J. Warner, Solicitors)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 5 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded and that Iceland Foods Ltd shall bear its own costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AHL
SERVICES, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,138
<ALLOWANCES>                                       945
<INVENTORY>                                      2,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,918
<PP&E>                                          33,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 329,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,583
<BONDS>                                        133,027
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           141
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   329,240
<SALES>                                        319,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               319,184
<CGS>                                          230,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  230,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                72,959
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,686
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,729
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,971
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,758
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,758
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 19, 2017

t0516 

# Order

Clerk May 1 9 , 2017

154360

MICHAEL MARTIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 154360

COA: 328240

Kalamazoo CC: 2013

- 000485

- NO

MILHAM MEADOWS I LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP and MEDALLION

MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for le ave to appeal the July 19, 2016

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The parties shall fi le supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary disposition on the

plaintiff’s claim that the stairs at issue were not “fit for the use intended by the parties”

and that the defendants did not keep the st airs in “reasonable repair.” MCL 554.139(1)(a)

and (b). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.

The Michigan Association for Justice, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and

the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus

curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in

this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
# C_2019363EN.01000402.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/4

---

Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by Kiku GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2019 in Case T-765/17, Kiku GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

(Case C-444/19 P)

(2019/C 363/08)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Kiku GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie

By order of 16 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Minera Andes Inc. for the
three-month period ended June 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         493,962
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               540,038
<PP&E>                                       4,390,923
<DEPRECIATION>                                 138,295
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,792,666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          232,584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    18,027,623
<OTHER-SE>                                (13,467,541)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,792,666
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               173,757
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (173,757)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (173,757)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (173,757)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>